Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On Feb 23, 2019, 1:27 AM, at 1:27 AM, Jan Zorz - Go6 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On 23/02/2019 01:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2019-02-23 09:36, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2019 22:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> Of course, SHOULD means "that there
>>>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>>> carefully weighed...". In other words, do RFC8028 and Rule 5.5
>>>> unless there's a good reason not to.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately not all vendors understand SHOULD in this way.
>>> Implementing more options is expensive and lowers the profits, so
>it's
>>> quite easy to fall into "implement all the MUSTS, declare compliancy
>>> with RFCs and ship the product" trap.
>> 
>> Sure. I dealt with a lot of development managers during my years
>> at a 3-letter company, so this error in thinking is quite familiar
>> to me. But there is nothing the IETF can really do about that.
>
>Actually, there is.
>
>If we feel that something must be implemented in end product, than we 
>should not be polite about it and use a MUST :) That's the quickest way
>
>to get things back on track.
>
>Cheers, Jan
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>[e-mail]
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------